Kev wrote:
>
> > > I don't understand what it is you're saying here. The ircu server uses
> > > non-blocking sockets, and has since long before EfNet and Undernet branched,
> > > so it already handles EWOULDBLOCK or EAGAIN intelligently, as far as I know.
> >
> > Right. poll() and Solaris /dev/p
Aaron Sethman wrote:
>
> On Sun, 3 Feb 2002, Dan Kegel wrote:
>
> > Kev wrote:
> > >
> > > > The /dev/epoll patch is good, but the interface is different enough
> > > > from /dev/poll that ircd would need a new engine_epoll.c anyway.
> > &g
Aaron Sethman wrote:
>
> > 2. you need to wrap your read()/write() calls on the socket with code
> > that notices EWOULDBLOCK
> This is perhaps the part we it disagrees with our code. I will
> investigate this part. The way we normally do things is have callbacks
> per fd, that get called when o
Kev wrote:
>
> > The /dev/epoll patch is good, but the interface is different enough
> > from /dev/poll that ircd would need a new engine_epoll.c anyway.
> > (It would look like a cross between engine_devpoll.c and engine_rtsig.c,
> > as it would need to be notified by os_linux.c of any EWOULDBLOC
Arjen Wolfs wrote:
> The ircu version that supports kqueue and /dev/poll is currently being
> beta-tested on a few servers on the Undernet. The graph at
> http://www.break.net/ircu10-to-11.png shows the load average (multiplied by
> 100) on a on a server with 3000-4000 clients using poll(), and /d
Howdy. I noticed that
http://coder-com.undernet.org/cgi-bin/cvsweb.cgi/~checkout~/ircu2.10/TODO?only_with_tag=HEAD
mentions
"* Prepare network code to handle even more connections:
http://www.kegel.com/c10k.html";
Is there a stress test program commonly used to measure
how many connections i
Vincent Sweeney wrote:
> > > [I want to use Linux for my irc server, but performance sucks.]
> > > 1) Someone is going to have to recode the ircd source we use and
> > > possibly a modified kernel in the *hope* that performance improves.
> > > 2) Convert the box to FreeBSD which seems to h
